an Impossible star found a "13 billion year old relic" from the past

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by Farnhold
There is so much we do not know about universe, and not even planet Earth. Things are way too different than what they appear to be.

Maybe there are things we are not meant to know?

How disappointing it would be if we eventually discovered that our universe is contained in nothing but a Giant Hadron Collider?

What about if you found it was contained in nothing?

Namaste.

This is not going to re-write our current understanding of the universe, it just means that
our present theory of primordial star formation needs to be revised. Thats how science
works, revision of theories is healthy and adds to better understanding of the subject.
stop blowing it out of all proportion, as if it debunks all our present knowledge of the cosmos.

Originally posted by Atzil321
This is not going to re-write our current understanding of the universe, it just means that
our present theory of primordial star formation needs to be revised. Thats how science
works, revision of theories is healthy and adds to better understanding of the subject.
stop blowing it out of all proportion, as if it debunks all our present knowledge of the cosmos.

i aplogise if you think im getting too excited,
i dont think it make all knowledge of the cosmos irrelevent,
i am of the idea that all knowledge should be shared for all to read and enjoy
i like finding things that challenge my preconceived notions of the universe,

and i love the debate,
this is not intended as an attack on scientists,
this is a new discovery full of wounder
and i find it interesting to speculate what it means

plus a member usually comes along who can explain it in much more detail than me
then i get to learn from them and so does anyone reading the thread

xploder

Perhaps this star was formed in a cloud of hydrogen and helium that was just floating around by itself that never managed to collapse into a star due to a null gravitational field flux anomaly. Put it on screen Commander Riker. Data zoom into that gravitational flux anomaly.

Captain, sensor scans indicate the null gravitational anomaly also has a significant amount of anti time properties to it allowing this cloud of hydrogen and helium to remain in a frozen state for the last 13 billion years where it wandered into our galaxy...or rather our galaxy wandered into it allowing it to release the hydrogen and helium and form a generation 1 star.

Basically this is a very strange anomaly. Technically it should NOT exist. Technically we have NEVER found a Generation 1 star and we have looked as far back as we possibly could. We SHOULD have found some when we look that far back in time but we just do not see them. For one to just be hanging out chilling in the middle of the milky way just doesn't make any sense.

Very cool post OP and certainly worthy of an ATS thread. Good job.

reply to post by Blue Shift


You do realise that the weapons the ''war machine'' use were invented by scientists right?
Or did you think laser guided bombs, nukes and stealth bombers ect ect grew on trees?

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Xeven
Too bad US is letting it's scientific endeavors die to budget woes while we keep feeding the killing machine.

Well, to be honest, the killing machine does a lot more for us than this kind of science. I mean, it's nice to know that the universe might be more than 13 billion years old, but what does that do for us, really? It don't put food on the table. It doesn't solve our economic woes. It doesn't employ anybody except a few scientists and teachers. Is the knowledge worth the cost of getting it? I don't know.

Challenging our understanding of science may not have immediate payoffs, but it does change things overall for the species of man...
Sure, it won't get you a bucket of kfc if you learn this fact, but it may introduce us to a completely different set of principles on cosmology, creating new tools to adjust for this new study, and discovering something based on those tools.

Also, the concept of a 13+ billion year old galaxy spikes moores law into a higher favorability of life out there...


Now, I wonder if they considered this star is not native to this galaxy, but rather a stray we picked up sometime back from a much older galaxy.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps


i loved that lol thanks,

i am going to run with the density anomoly and say something must have condenced the star from a cloud of gas and it is a star so somethings running it,
most proberly not nuclear, (pure speculation)
your density anomoly would acually explain it quite nicly



xploder

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

You do realise that the weapons the ''war machine'' use were invented by scientists right?
Or did you think laser guided bombs, nukes and stealth bombers ect ect grew on trees?

So...your saying you don't have a stealth bomber bush? I thought everyone did.


people have a general disconnect from science to invention...people often criticise quantum physics as being just academic nonsense that amounts to not a lot in terms of what they can benefit from its knowledge...then turns on their digital television and watches american idol, not realizing the general irony

Originally posted by XPLodER

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of European astronomers has used ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) to track down a star in the Milky Way that many thought was impossible. They discovered that this star is composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, with only remarkably small amounts of other chemical elements in it. This intriguing composition places it in the "forbidden zone" of a widely accepted theory of star formation, meaning that it should never have come into existence in the first place. The results will appear in the 1 September 2011 issue of the journal Nature.

this is strange does anyone know how weird this is?

Not weird at all unless you never accept that a theory is just "a theory" and thus open to change. This merely means that the theory on star formation needs changing! Just recently the theory on solar system formation had to change when they looked at the planets of other solar systems ie all those exoplanet discoveries. The old theory was based on a sample size of ONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The researchers also point out that this freakish star is probably not unique. “We have identified several more candidate stars that might have metal levels similar to, or even lower than, those in SDSS J102915+172927. We are now planning to observe them with the VLT to see if this is the case,” concludes Caffau.

link to source

i will ask the questions,
how can the current understanding of cosmology explain this star?
it should not have had time to condence under the current theories of gravity star formation and have the elements that it does,

do our star formation timelines need "tweeking" or is this too far and too old and too light in elements?

xploder

edit on 31-8-2011 by XPLodER because: add pic

edit on 31-8-2011 by XPLodER because: add more

edit on 31-8-2011 by XPLodER because: add more

No mystery just an old theory of star formation that needs revising. This is science at work! By the way your title is misleading.

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by Aeons
The star is obviously not impossible - the models are incorrect.

That's science. You find new information, you update your models.

More hydrogen and helium in a denser state than was expected. Perhaps the expansion of the Universe wasn't quite as fast as currently predicted, leaving denser accumulations of lighter elements.

edit on 2011/8/31 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

so are you in the tweek the current model camp?
because how can a star be a "nulclear" furnace if there are no heavey elements?

xploder

Hey, sometimes a model doesn't need to be tweaked - it needs to be thrown in the incinerator.

In this case, I doubt that.

How can a star be in a state of 13 billion years of fission without heavy elements? I have no idea. Perhaps the original isotopes of hydrogen and helium in this cloud were unusually heavy with other quanta.

reply to post by malcr


i can still alter the tittle,
i will do so if you think it is misleading

that is not my intent
altered to
an Impossible star found a "13 billion year old relic" from the past,

xploder

This is either a newly formed star that has not had the chance to create the heavier elements or a star 13 billion light years away, and as the universe is only about 13.7 billion years old, this star has just formed, and so again has had not enough time to create the heavier elements.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by Aeons
The star is obviously not impossible - the models are incorrect.

That's science. You find new information, you update your models.

More hydrogen and helium in a denser state than was expected. Perhaps the expansion of the Universe wasn't quite as fast as currently predicted, leaving denser accumulations of lighter elements.

edit on 2011/8/31 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

so are you in the tweek the current model camp?
because how can a star be a "nulclear" furnace if there are no heavey elements?

xploder

Hey, sometimes a model doesn't need to be tweaked - it needs to be thrown in the incinerator.

In this case, I doubt that.

How can a star be in a state of 13 billion years of fission without heavy elements? I have no idea. Perhaps the original isotopes of hydrogen and helium in this cloud were unusually heavy with other quanta.

i am stumped at this stage,
i do beleive that energy can be substituted for mass and if enough energy was present at the center of the "cloud" it could "condence" the clould enought to form...... but as to what is then powering it ?????

your hydrogen quanta model is interesting..


xploder

Originally posted by bhaal
This is either a newly formed star that has not had the chance to create the heavier elements or a star 13 billion light years away, and as the universe is only about 13.7 billion years old, this star has just formed, and so again has had not enough time to create the heavier elements.

i know right if the star is 13 billion years old and in our galaxy then wtf
and if it is 13 billion years away (13 billion light years) then how old is the universe?
and how long does it take for hydrogen and helium to condence into a star of this type?

hot hot is it and what are the carictoristics of the star?

xploder

And how can they tell the composition of something that far away? I doubt they can. Sounds like guesses to me.

If that star is in our galaxy then they cannot know its 13 billion years old, for them to know its 13 billion years old it has to be 13 billion light years away.

Unless the have a way of carbon dating that star, but that would require a sample for them to carbon date.

Originally posted by againuntodust
And how can they tell the composition of something that far away? I doubt they can. Sounds like guesses to me.

Spectral analysis. Matter has unique spectral properties. You can analyze the spectrum of the object, and derive the consistuent components.

Photons. Freaking Amazing Things.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by Farnhold
There is so much we do not know about universe, and not even planet Earth. Things are way too different than what they appear to be.

Maybe there are things we are not meant to know?

How disappointing it would be if we eventually discovered that our universe is contained in nothing but a Giant Hadron Collider?

What about if you found it was contained in nothing?

Namaste.

Now that would really go confusing things!!

heres a good article on wikipedia about metal content in stars Metallicity so according to them its difficult to observe, so rarely seen, but expected according to star formation models and stuff.

i dont really read too much on the topic so i cant say whether whats in wikipedia is accepted in the greater astronomical community, but from a cursory glance, this doesnt seem like a gamechanger.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps

Technically we have NEVER found a Generation 1 star and we have looked as far back as we possibly could. We SHOULD have found some when we look that far back in time but we just do not see them. For one to just be hanging out chilling in the middle of the milky way just doesn't make any sense.

A wrinkle in time? The ribbon of time folding back on itself? Hmmm...
Very puzzling, indeed. I don't suppose anyone's spotted a suspicious vortex lurking near it...